- Planning, implementation and innovation related to rainwater management - what we've learned so far - an update from the baselining exercise - lead Josie Tucker [presentation]
- Innovation platforms - what we envisage for national and local platforms, what we've done to develop these already and how they will link - lead Kees Swaans [presentation]
- Linking innovation platforms with action to improve rainwater management - what mechanisms do we foresee? - lead Alan Duncan [presentation]
- (Policy - what could we be doing to understand policy environment and how could we go about influencing policy - lead Ranjitha Puskur [presentation]
- Engagement with partners - lead Tilahun Amede [presentation]
People, Presenters, Process
Process started with a brief session introduction by Alan. This was followed by a series of 10 min conversation starters for each area by each of the leads in the form of ppts. At end of each presentation topic leads proposed discussion questions which were refined in plenary.
After a break the next component involved a peer assist using world cafe format - we had one group per topic (two groups for Alan's topic). Participants changed groups after 20 minutes. Final 20 minutes was used for reporting back for which we used video to capture main points.
6 groups discussed questions posed by the presenters:
Baseline research on livelihoods and RWM planning, implementation & innovation (Josie - VIDEO REPORT FROM THE GROUP)
How can NBDC support more flexible and participatory implementation of RWM, and support innovation, given that the planning process seems to be top-down and rigid?
How can CPWF take account of the rapidly changing situation in some woredas in its models?
How will CPWF deal with pressing local issues which may be outside the remit of RWM but which are likely to constrain adoption or benefits of RWM?
Innovation platforms - what we envisage for national and local platforms (Kees - VIDEO REPORT FROM THE GROUP)
Who should facilitate such platforms?
Where will resources for any proposed actions come from?
Should we set out to establish IP’s around different themes e.g. “markets”, “NRM” etc
Or should we look at strategies to MAKE the link between NRM and markets at the local innovation platform?
How do you manage difference in power between different actors?
Engagement with partners - how do we streamline, integrate, co-ordinate the engagement of the various NBDC projects with national research partners? (Tilahun - VIDEO REPORT FROM THE GROUP)
What lessons have we learned so far about partnership building? What went well? What didn’t go well? What do partners want out of collaboration with NBDC? When to engage?
How should we identify partners? based on trust? competency? power balance? Resources? recognition for delivery? Who is joining who?
How do we organize our Nile projects in communicating with partners? Individual Ns? Demand-based? Through N5?
How do we best communicate with partners? What are the best channels for interacting with wider actors?
How do we ensure our evidence is credible, relevant. practical and operationally useful?
How and what kind of feedback processes and networks should we develop to communicate our messages?
What kind of communication vehicles would be most appropriate for communicating research to policy makers in the Ethiopian NBDC context?
How do we go about understanding policy better? Are we aware of key decision moments?
Action-oriented innovation platforms to improve rainwater management - what mechanisms do we foresee? - (Alan - VIDEO REPORT FROM THE GROUP)
Who should facilitate such platforms?
Where will resources for any proposed actions come from?
Should we set out to establish IP’s around different themes e.g. “markets”, “NRM” etc
Or should we look at strategies to MAKE the link between NRM and markets at the local innovation platform?
How do you manage difference in power between different actors?
Action-oriented innovation platforms to improve rainwater management - what mechanisms do we foresee? - (Jemimah - VIDEO REPORT FROM THE GROUP)
Who should facilitate such platforms?
Where will resources for any proposed actions come from?
Should we set out to establish IP’s around different themes e.g. “markets”, “NRM” etc
Or should we look at strategies to MAKE the link between NRM and markets at the local innovation platform?
How do you manage difference in power between different actors?
Theme Reflection
To what extent is the science presented so far or from this session progressing the Nile BDC? gaps, omissions?
Scientific approach not evident – how will you evaluate impact of these processes
Science: policy presentations had a strong science background but the presentation on platforms and partnerships did not have strong linkage to science
How representative are the sties?
Science isn’t enough in the afternoon session
Management of platforms from building partnership .. and pro… all appear to me more arts rather than science
Scientific innovations is still emerging
Can social networks science … in the internet be mined for non-internet communication
Move from conceptual/general to specifics
Research findings should not be left on shelf rather it should be implemented
Too little time to present and discuss science + concept
Where is the science in the science meeting/ process session
Science: where are the research questions? \how is the IP approach comparable to other approaches like CBNRM?
Science of innovations still emerging
Science not yet clear, hypotheses still being articulated
What can we take forward so far or from this session to strengthen project complementarities
Networking between and among concerned partners (local NGO, INGO, CBO, GO, I….) should be considered in case of partnership and platform communication
The linkage between .. them and others is not yet clear for external audience
Policy and network intelligence research can move forward – very helpful
Issues are discussed broadly without synthesis and distillation
How will the innovation platforms be used by the other themes?
Linkages between the process and other project aspects (modeling etc.) not clear
Innovation platforms are central and need to link ALL elements of the program
Ideas about where actual engagement with real people will occur location, scale, frequently .
What progress have we made so far or in this session on core concepts and approaches? suggestions?
Concepts good progress another step forward towards operationalize
Need to more from concepts to action
The concept is good and approaches are nicely recommended
Partnerships and platforms presentations had good linkage and concept framework – There was no representation of expectations
Concept has become clearer around innovation platforms but the implementation remains a big challenge
The very idea of partnership, proper communication, creating platform(s) are very essential; they have to be promoted and moved forewords
Synchronize local knowledge with concepts of RWM
There is no such clear demarcation between the concept, science and the complementary, as one depends on the other they are aiming at one goal of implementation
Concepts: innovation platform – what is the medium term plan and long term sustainability
It is more clear what is being done – lots of concepts in this session not clear why they are all lumped together here
Rapporteur Notes from this session
The session was initiated through five short overview presentations covering the themes of:(1). Planning; (2) Innovative Platforms; (3) Linking innovative platforms with action; (4) Contributing to evidence based policy and (5) Engagement with partners. Each of the presentations concluded with a series of questions that were to form the focus of the subsequent break-out discussion groups. At the end of each presentation workshop participants were asked to comment on the questions proposed in terms of – anything missing or editorial changes to the emphasis of questions. These changes were briefly discussed and the questions edited.
Following this participants moved to one of six tables covering the five themes (there were two tables covering theme (5)). Contributions from participants was summarised and captured by the Table facilitator (the presenters of the overviews of the five topics). After 20 minutes participants moved to a second table and topic of their choice for a further discussion.
To conclude the session each table facilitator gave a report, videoed, on the main discussion points. These report back sequences reflect a range of rich and diverse material. Some common themes that came out across the groups as picked up by the plenary feedback were:
• Build and utilise existing processes, structures and initiatives which are already in existence. Do not re-invent the wheel!
• There is a key role for focussed and targeted communication that recognises different needs and roles of those involved in all aspects of the NBDC.
• There is a potential identify and to build on existing enthusiastic champions and organisations to increase participation and to ensure a longer term sustainability beyond the NBDC project.
NBDC Science and Reflection Workshop
4-6 May 2011
Theme 2: Processes
Wednesday 4 May: 14:30 - 17:00
Organizer: Alan
Rapporteur: Simon Langan
CPWF Reflector: Boru Douthwaite
Short Scope Note for this conversation
Processes (Including people, platforms, innovation systems, networking, learning, policies, institutions)
Topics for this session were:
- Introduction [presentation]
- Planning, implementation and innovation related to rainwater management - what we've learned so far - an update from the baselining exercise - lead Josie Tucker [presentation]
- Innovation platforms - what we envisage for national and local platforms, what we've done to develop these already and how they will link - lead Kees Swaans [presentation]
- Linking innovation platforms with action to improve rainwater management - what mechanisms do we foresee? - lead Alan Duncan [presentation]
- (Policy - what could we be doing to understand policy environment and how could we go about influencing policy - lead Ranjitha Puskur [presentation]
- Engagement with partners - lead Tilahun Amede [presentation]
People, Presenters, Process
Process started with a brief session introduction by Alan. This was followed by a series of 10 min conversation starters for each area by each of the leads in the form of ppts. At end of each presentation topic leads proposed discussion questions which were refined in plenary.
After a break the next component involved a peer assist using world cafe format - we had one group per topic (two groups for Alan's topic). Participants changed groups after 20 minutes. Final 20 minutes was used for reporting back for which we used video to capture main points.
6 groups discussed questions posed by the presenters:
Baseline research on livelihoods and RWM planning, implementation & innovation (Josie - VIDEO REPORT FROM THE GROUP)
Innovation platforms - what we envisage for national and local platforms (Kees - VIDEO REPORT FROM THE GROUP)
Engagement with partners - how do we streamline, integrate, co-ordinate the engagement of the various NBDC projects with national research partners? (Tilahun - VIDEO REPORT FROM THE GROUP)
Contributing to evidence-based policy making – (Ranjitha - VIDEO REPORT FROM THE GROUP)
Action-oriented innovation platforms to improve rainwater management - what mechanisms do we foresee? - (Alan - VIDEO REPORT FROM THE GROUP)
Action-oriented innovation platforms to improve rainwater management - what mechanisms do we foresee? - (Jemimah - VIDEO REPORT FROM THE GROUP)
Theme Reflection
Rapporteur Notes from this session
The session was initiated through five short overview presentations covering the themes of:(1). Planning; (2) Innovative Platforms; (3) Linking innovative platforms with action; (4) Contributing to evidence based policy and (5) Engagement with partners. Each of the presentations concluded with a series of questions that were to form the focus of the subsequent break-out discussion groups. At the end of each presentation workshop participants were asked to comment on the questions proposed in terms of – anything missing or editorial changes to the emphasis of questions. These changes were briefly discussed and the questions edited.
Following this participants moved to one of six tables covering the five themes (there were two tables covering theme (5)). Contributions from participants was summarised and captured by the Table facilitator (the presenters of the overviews of the five topics). After 20 minutes participants moved to a second table and topic of their choice for a further discussion.
To conclude the session each table facilitator gave a report, videoed, on the main discussion points. These report back sequences reflect a range of rich and diverse material. Some common themes that came out across the groups as picked up by the plenary feedback were:
• Build and utilise existing processes, structures and initiatives which are already in existence. Do not re-invent the wheel!
• There is a key role for focussed and targeted communication that recognises different needs and roles of those involved in all aspects of the NBDC.
• There is a potential identify and to build on existing enthusiastic champions and organisations to increase participation and to ensure a longer term sustainability beyond the NBDC project.